HEDONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM.
[Sidenote: 1. Alliance of evolutionism and hedonism effected in two
ways:]
The alliance between Evolutionism and Hedonism may be arrived at
from either of the two points of view which are being brought into
connection: may be either an attempt to bring the hedonistic end into
the definite region of law revealed by the evolution of life; or may
result from the endeavour to give clearness and persuasiveness to an
ethical end which evolution itself seems to point to.
[Sidenote: (_a_) greatest happiness to be obtained by conforming to
laws of life or of evolution;]
The former point of view is represented in Mr Spencer's rejection
of empirical utilitarianism, and substitution for it of a practical
end which is not enunciated in terms of pleasure. Happiness is still
regarded by him as the supreme end; but the tendency to it is not
to be adopted as the end in practical morality. There are certain
conditions to social equilibrium which "must be fulfilled before
complete life--that is, greatest happiness--can be obtained in any
society."[154] Thus the form of "rational utilitarianism" which he
endeavours to establish "does not take welfare for its immediate
object of pursuit," but "conformity to certain principles which,
in the nature of things, causally determine welfare."[155] Having
deduced "from the laws of life and the conditions of existence what
kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness, and what kinds
to produce unhappiness," we are to recognise these deductions "as
laws of conduct ... irrespective of a direct estimation of happiness
or misery."[156] The assumption is thus distinctly made that the
tendency of life is to happiness, and that the laws of its evolution
yield practical principles by following out which the greatest
happiness may be obtained, without attempting the impossible task of
estimating directly the felicific and infelicific results of conduct.
[Sidenote: (_b_) ethical end of evolution interpreted by pleasure.]
Starting with the evolutionist point of view, but with an opposite
estimate of the relative value for practice of the ends supplied by
evolutionism and by hedonism, a like identification of them might
seem advisable. The "increase of life" to which evolution tends
may be regarded as not merely an account of the actual process of
existence, but as a principle of action for a conscious being. In
this way some such ethical imperative as "Be a self-conscious agent
in the evolution of the universe"[157] may be formulated. Yet as
the "evolution of the universe" is a somewhat large conception,
and its laws are not clear to every one, it may seem necessary that
the end should be explained by translation into better-known terms.
And this may be done if the conduct which promotes life most is, at
the same time, the conduct which increases pleasure most. In this
way, although the ultimate end is life, or, in vaster phrase, "the
evolution of the universe," the practical end is pleasure. The moral
value of conduct will depend on its tendency to increase the balance
of pleasure over pain. The ethics of evolution will be reduced to
hedonism.
This way of determining the evolutionist end is put forward as
a logical possibility rather than as representing the views of
any party. The contribution which the theory of evolution has to
offer towards the determination of the ethical end, has not yet
received that definite expression which would justify our passing
by any logical interpretation of it, on the ground of its not
being actually adopted by ethical writers. Yet it would seem that
the above point of view is not altogether foreign to evolutionist
morality. The preservation or development of the individual--or of
the race--which is put forward as an expression both for the actual
course of evolution and the subjective impulse corresponding to it,
is often assumed to agree at each step with the desire for pleasure,
and, when the stage of reflective consciousness is reached, to be
identical with the pursuit of a maximum of pleasure.[158] In this
way it is assumed that the preservation and development of life tend
always to pleasure, and that the end or tendency of evolution is
being fulfilled when the greatest pleasure is wisely sought. It is
therefore necessary to inquire how far the correspondence between
life and pleasure, or between development and pleasure, actually
holds, that we may see whether it is possible for the one to take the
place of the other in determining the end for conduct.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 2. Evolutionist argument for concomitance of life and
pleasure.]
Now it is argued, from the point of view of evolution, that, taking
for granted that pleasure motives action, the organisms in which
pleasurable acts coincided with life-preserving or health-promoting
acts must have survived in the struggle for existence at the
expense of those organisms whose pleasurable activity tended to
their destruction or to the hindrance of their efficiency.[159] The
assumption in this argument, in addition to the constant postulate
of natural selection, is simply that pleasure is a chief motive of
action; the conclusion to which it leads is, that there is a broad
correspondence between life-preserving and pleasurable acts--that the
preservation and development of life are pleasurable. It is necessary
to examine with care the validity of this important argument with
reference to the attacks that may be made on it from the pessimist
point of view; and, if its doctrine of the correspondence of life
and pleasure is not entirely erroneous, to inquire further whether
this correspondence can be made to establish an end for conduct, in
accordance with the theory of evolution, by measuring life in terms
of pleasure.
[Sidenote: 3. Objections to this argument:]
What then is to be said of the supposed "conflict between Eudæmonism
[Hedonism] and Evolutionism" which v. Hartmann[160] opposes to the
optimist doctrine that evolution has tended to make life and pleasure
coincide?
The problem of Pessimism resolves itself into two questions which
admit of being kept distinct: (_a_) The first is, Does life on
the whole give, or can it give, a balance of pleasure? This is
the fundamental question of the value of life as put by those,
whether optimists or pessimists, who assume that "value" means
"pleasure-value." If it be answered in the negative, the hedonistic
ideal must be the reduction of the adverse balance to the zero-point
of feeling striven after by Eastern ascetics, but, to all appearance,
obtained only and most easily by death.[161] (_b_) The second
question is, Does the evolution of life lead to an increase of
pleasure and diminution of pain? This is the question brought into
prominence in recent discussions, and of most importance for the
present inquiry; and upon an affirmative answer to it Evolutionist
Hedonism is plainly dependent. To both questions v. Hartmann gives an
answer in the negative.
[Sidenote: (_a_) that life cannot bring more pleasure than pain;]
(_a_) If the pessimist view of life is correct, Mr Spencer
holds,[162] then "the ending of an undesirable existence being the
thing to be wished, that which causes the ending of it must be
applauded." And this is so far true, though not necessarily true in
the way Mr Spencer thinks. For this undesirable existence cannot,
perhaps, be brought to a final conclusion merely by ending the
individual life: this would only leave room for other individuals
to fill the vacant places. Annihilation is the end not directly for
the individual, but for the race. Not life itself, according to
Schopenhauer, but the will to live, is to be killed in the individual
man. Even this code of morals, Hartmann thinks, is a remnant of
the false, pre-evolutionist individualism, and would hinder the
course of the universe, by leaving the game to be played out by the
remaining individuals whose wills were not strong enough to curb or
kill themselves. It is a mistake to think that the will to live which
pulses through all existence can be annihilated by the phenomenal
individual. The individual's duty is not to seek for himself the
painlessness of annihilation or passionless Nirwâna, but to join in
the ceaseless painful striving of nature, and, by contributing to the
development of life, to hasten its arrival once more at the goal of
unconsciousness. The self-destruction, not of the individual will,
but of the cosmic or universal will, is the final end of action.
Apart from the metaphysical view of things with which this estimate
of the value of life is connected, and which may be regarded perhaps
as its consequent rather than its cause,[163] the pessimist doctrine
has a double foundation, in psychology and in the facts of life.
[Sidenote: (α) from the negative nature of pleasure,]
Psychologically, it seems to be best supported by Schopenhauer's
doctrine of will or desire as an incessant painful striving, pleasure
being merely the negative of this pain, and always coming short of
completely satisfying it. But this position involves a double error
in psychological analysis, and is relinquished even by Hartmann,
though he still regards pleasure as in all cases satisfaction of
desire. Desire is itself merely a secondary or derived fact in human
nature, consequent on the inhibition of volitional energy.[164] The
pleasures we call passive are independent of it; and those which
attend upon activity, but are not themselves part of the end of
action, are also enjoyed without being striven after in order to
satisfy a want. Further, it is a mistake to look upon the pleasure
of attainment as a mere negation of the pain of desire. The painful
element in desire comes from the inhibition of the attempted
realisation of an ideal object. In unsatisfied desires, it is true,
the pain is in proportion to the strength of the restrained longing.
But, if the inhibition is overcome, the pain is not equal to the
strength of the desire, but only to the amount of opposition that has
to be conquered in satisfying it. Hence, not only are there other
pleasures than those of satisfied desire, but even the pleasure got
from such satisfaction is something more than a mere recompense for
the pain accompanying the desire.
[Sidenote: (β) from the facts of human life;]
The support got by pessimism from the facts of human life is
more difficult to estimate at its true value. It is obvious that
pleasure and pain are intermingled in almost every experience; and
the proportion in which they are mixed varies greatly in different
circumstances and according to the susceptibilities of different
persons. If we ask a number of people whether life is on the whole
pleasant to them, not only do we receive a variety of answers which
it is hard to sum up and average, but the answers we get are apt
to reflect the feeling of the moment rather than to represent an
impartial estimate of the pleasure and pain of a lifetime. Thus
experience seems unable to give us a trustworthy answer as to the
average pleasure-value of life; but, if its verdict is correct, that
to some life is pleasant, though to many painful, this shows that a
surplus of pain does not follow from the nature of life, and thus
destroys the position of thoroughgoing pessimism, which looks upon
this as the worst of all possible worlds.
[Sidenote: (_b_) that the evolution of life does not tend to
pleasure.]
(_b_) It may still be maintained, however--and this is the position
which chiefly concerns us here--that the course of evolution does
not tend to increase the pleasure in life at the expense of the pain
in it, and that, therefore, even although pleasure and evolution may
both of them be possible ends of conduct, they are ends which point
in different directions and lead to different courses of action.
[Sidenote: (α) Incompleteness of the evolutionist argument.]
It is necessary for the evolutionist who holds that the development
of life does not tend to increased pleasure, to meet the argument
already adduced[165] to show their correspondence. Nor does that
argument seem to be altogether beyond criticism. To compare progress
or development with pleasure, we ought to know exactly what is
meant by both terms. Yet it is impossible to have a clear notion of
progress without an idea of the end to which it tends, and this has
not yet been obtained. It is largely on account of the difficulty
of obtaining such an idea that some evolutionists seem to have been
driven to measure progress in terms of pleasure, just as, owing to
the difficulty of estimating and summing up pleasures, some hedonists
have been induced to measure them by the progress of evolution. What
we have now to see is whether the correspondence assumed between
progress and pleasure actually exists. And, to avoid the tautology of
saying that progress is increase of life, we must judge of it simply
by empirical observation of the nature of human activity and of the
course of human affairs.
Now the attempted identification of pleasurable and life-promoting
activities rests on an incomplete account of the motives and results
of action. For, in the first place, even admitting that pleasure and
avoidance of pain are the only motives to action, the influence of
natural selection has not prevented actions hurtful to life being
sometimes accompanied by pleasant sensations. Its tendency to do
so has been much more effective in the lower orders of animal life
than in the higher. The latter, especially man, possess the power of
representing ideal states in the imagination, and are thus able to
avoid actions hurtful to life, although these actions are pleasant
at the time. For the hurtful consequences of the action may be so
vividly represented in idea as to outweigh the influence of the
present pleasure which could be got from its enjoyment.[166]
And further, the analysis of volition involved in the argument seems
to be insufficient. For there are other springs of action to be
taken account of than pleasure and its opposite. Habit, imitation,
and interests of a more comprehensive kind than desire of pleasant
feeling, are all motives to action. It is true that pleasure is
always felt in the successful performance of an action, and it is
also true that the inhibition of will is always painful; but it
is none the less incorrect to look either upon the pleasure that
follows from the action, or the pain that would be the result of
its inhibition as, in ordinary cases, the motive. It is motives of
a different kind than pleasure, such as imitation[167] and the
influence of ideal ends, which most often lead to progress. And
the progress that is due to such motives cannot be measured by its
effect in increasing pleasure, nor assumed to make pleasure and
life correspond. Other activities less advantageous in nature in
all respects but this, might, so far as the reasoning goes, lead to
equal or to more pleasurable consequences. At the best, therefore,
the above argument only proves a general tendency towards the
coincidence of pleasurable actions with actions which promote life;
it does not show that the increase of life can be accurately measured
by pleasure. The process of natural selection might kill off all
organisms whose desires led them normally to action hurtful to life.
But sufficient evidence has not been brought forward to show that
it is fitted to produce an exact proportion between progress and
pleasure.
[Sidenote: (β) The pessimist doctrine that life tends to misery:]
[Sidenote: (_aa_) the hypothesis of the unconscious;]
Hartmann, however, attempts to strike a more fundamental blow than
this at the presupposition involved in the argument for evolutionist
hedonism. For he contends that, throughout all life, the great pulse
of progress is neither, on the one hand, desire for pleasure, nor,
on the other, the more complex and varied motives just referred to,
but that it is the incessant striving towards fulness of life by a
universal unconscious will, which is manifested in all things, and
which is for ever pressing onwards towards conscious realisation,
regardless of the increase of pain which the course of evolution
implies. But this hypothesis of unconscious will is not a justifiable
metaphysical principle got at by the analysis of experience, and
necessary for its explanation, though lying beyond it. It is a
"metempirical," or rather mythical, cause interpolated into the
processes of experience. Hence the antagonism in which it stands to
psychological fact: its disregard of the effect of pleasure as a
powerful motive in volition; and its neglect of the obvious truth
that function so reacts upon organ that all actions have simply
by continuance a tendency to be performed with greater ease, and
therefore to yield in their performance increase of pleasure. The
smoothness and precision with which it works may, indeed, lead to
a function being performed unconsciously, and thus without either
pain or pleasure. But the normal exercise of conscious activity is
uniformly pleasurable.[168]
[Sidenote: (_bb_) the nature of volition;]
While giving up Schopenhauer's doctrine of the merely negative
character of pleasure, Hartmann yet contends that "eternal limits"
are set by the very nature of volition, which make it impossible
to have a world with more pleasure in it than pain. But his
arguments[169] come very far short of proving his case. For, in the
first place, to say that the stimulation and wearying of the nerves
imply the necessity of a cessation of pleasure as well as of pain,
is to confuse complete states of consciousness with the subjective
feeling which accompanies each state. It is not true that one ever
becomes weary of pleasure: to talk as if there were one class of
nerves for pleasure, and another for pain, is absurd. But every
mental state, however pleasurable to start with, tends to become
monotonous, wearisome, or painful. Pleasure thus requires a change
from one mental state to another: to say that it requires a change
from pleasure to something else is a contradiction in terms. It is
the objects or activity that require to be varied, not the feeling
of pleasure. Again, in the second place, it is true that pleasure
is to be regarded as indirect _in so far as_ it is entirely due
to the cessation of a pain, and not to instantaneous satisfaction
of will. But it does not do to regard the pleasure as altogether
indirect when, although the cessation of a pain is necessary for its
production, it is itself something more than this cessation. The
inhibition of will often prevents the realisation of an object which
is very much more than a recompense in pleasurable quality for the
pain of the restraint; and although the pleasure only arises from
the removal of this painful state of inhibition, there is a direct
and positive gain over and above the gratification of having pain
removed. In the third place, Hartmann argues that the satisfaction
of will is often unconscious, whereas pain is _eo ipso_ conscious.
But, even admitting the reality of unconscious will or desire, which
this argument involves, it does not follow that pleasure and pain are
differently affected in regard to it. If pain is _eo ipso_ conscious,
so also is pleasure; if the satisfaction of unconscious desire gives
no pleasure, neither does the absence of such satisfaction give
pain.[170] It is true, as Hartmann adds in the fourth place, that
desire is often long and the joy of satisfaction fleeting; but this
refers not so much to mental pleasures as to those connected with
physical appetite. Of them it is true that
"These violent delights have violent ends,
And in their triumph die."
But in the higher pleasures with more permanent objects of pursuit,
although the desire may be long-continued, the pleasure does not
disappear in the moment of gratification.
It would seem, therefore, that the pessimist psychology, in treating
pleasure in a different way from pain, mistakes the true nature
of both as simply "polar extremes"[171] of feeling, and prevents
the argument being faced which has been brought forward to show the
increasing correspondence of pleasure and life.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: (_cc_) the facts of human progress:]
The failure of the psychological argument makes the whole burden of
the proof of pessimism rest upon the argument from historical facts.
And the attempt has been definitely made to show, from observation
of the course of human affairs, that the progress of the world
tends to misery. It is necessary, therefore, to ask whether it can
be established that the facts included under the vague term "human
progress" have a normal tendency either to increase pleasure or to
act in the opposite way. Now progress is a characteristic both of the
individual and of society; but pleasure only belongs to the former,
so that an answer to the question whether individual progress tends
to increase the surplus of pleasure over pain, still leaves unsettled
the question as to the effect of social progress.
[Sidenote: individual progress;]
It seems evident that both the physical and mental development of the
individual imply greater adaptability to, and correspondence with,
the external world, and that, on account of this development, there
is less unpleasant friction between outer and inner relations, and
means are at hand for obtaining objects of desire with less exertion
than formerly. But, at the same time, the increase of knowledge and
of skill always implies not merely the means of satisfying old wants,
but the creation of new ones: we see more of the evil in the world
than our forefathers did, and there are more avenues by which it
can approach us, if we have also more effective means for avoiding
what we dislike. And, although knowledge brings with it not only the
pleasure of gratified curiosity, but that recognition of a universal
order which frees the mind from the evils bred by a belief in the
fickleness of nature, yet this all-pervading sense of law has so
regulated our beliefs and methods of research that science itself may
seem to have lost the peculiar freshness of interest that belonged
to its earlier stages; while the feelings called forth by a vision
of the divine presence in the world, find but a poor substitute
in the sublime region of "cosmic emotion." Further, the widening
of the sympathetic feelings and their consequent activities, and
the refinement of the whole sensitive nature by which it responds
more quickly and accurately to emotional stimuli, have made the
present generation more susceptible to both pain and pleasure than
its predecessors. But Hartmann's argument that the duller nervous
system of the savage races (Naturvölker) makes them happier than the
civilised (Culturvölker),[172] leaves out of sight the new sources of
pleasure as well as pain that are opened up to a refined sensibility.
According to Hartmann, the æsthetic sensibilities may be a source
of painless pleasure: yet even their cultivation cannot be said to
be matter of pure gain to their possessors; for the pain of discord
is to be set against--in his opinion, it outweighs--the pleasure of
harmony. On the whole, then, it would appear that the evolution of
the individual leads to greater possibilities both of pleasure and of
pain. The refinement of the intellectual and emotional nature opens
up wider ranges of both kinds of feeling; and we are driven to look
mainly to the improvement of the social environment for the means of
increasing pleasure and diminishing pain.
[Sidenote: social progress:]
[Sidenote: industrial,]
But to estimate the hedonistic value of social progress is a still
more difficult task than the preceding. For the march of affairs has
often little regard to its effect on the happiness of the greater
number of people concerned. Industrially, it may be thought that
the increase in the amount of wealth produced affords a vastly
greater means of comfort and luxury. Yet, it is doubtful whether
this increase has always been sufficient to keep pace with the
growth of population; and it is certain that every society whose
territory is limited, must, when its numbers have increased beyond
a certain point, begin to experience the diminishing returns which
nature yields for the labour expended upon it. Indeed, the tendency
to an excess in the rate of increase of population over that of
means of subsistence is one of the chief causes which make it so
difficult to assert that civilisation tends to greater happiness.
But, even although the average quantity of wealth be greater now than
before, it must be remembered that wealth is measured by its amount,
whereas happiness depends on the equality with which that amount
is distributed.[173] Yet the present industrial _régime_ tends to
the accumulation of immense wealth in a few hands, rather than to
its proportionate increase throughout the community. The industrial
progress which increases the wealth of the rich, has little to
recommend it if it leaves the "labouring poor" at a starvation-wage.
"And what if Trade sow cities
Like shells along the shore,
And thatch with towns the prairie broad
With railways ironed o'er,"--
if the population can be divided into plutocrats and proletariate?
Moreover, the very nature of economic production seems to imply an
opposition between social progress and individual wellbeing. For
the former, in demanding the greatest possible amount of produce,
requires an excessive and increasing specialisation of labour.
Each worker must perform that operation only to which he has
been specially trained, or which he can do best. And in this way
industrialism tends to occupy the greater part of the waking hours
of an increasing proportion of human lives in the repetition of a
short series of mechanical movements which call out a bare minimum
of the faculties of the worker, dwarf his nature, and reduce his
life to a mere succession of the same monotonous sensation.[174] In
spite, therefore, of immense improvements in the general conditions
of wellbeing, it is still difficult to say that the happiness of the
average human life has been much increased by the march of industrial
progress.
[Sidenote: and political.]
A more hopeful view may, perhaps, be taken of the effect of political
progress. The increase of popular government gratifies the desire for
power, and, in some cases, even tends to a more efficient management
of affairs. Still more important in its effect on happiness is
the greater security for life and property which the gradual
consolidation of political control has brought about. It would seem,
too, that the harsher features of the struggle by which this advance
takes place have been modified; and that the war of politics has
abated in fury more than the war of trade. On the whole, therefore,
the tendency of modern political rule appears to be towards an almost
unmixed gain in respect of happiness,--by the security it affords for
life and property, by its wide distribution of political power, and
by the room it gives for individual freedom. Yet the last of these
results--in the _laissez-faire_ system of industrialism to which it
has led, and which, in spite of many modifications, is still in the
ascendant--has effects of a more doubtful character.
This mere reference to one or two of the leading features of
progress would not be sufficient to support a thesis either as to
its beneficial or baneful tendency. But evidence enough has been
led to show that the effects on pleasure of individual and social
development are of a mixed kind,--that culture and civilisation
have neither the tendency to misery which Hartmann follows Rousseau
in attributing to them,[175] nor, on the other hand, that steady
correspondence with increasing pleasure which would be required to
establish the position of evolutionist hedonism.
[Sidenote: Necessity of choosing between evolutionism and hedonism.]
It follows, therefore, that, without adopting a pessimist view, we
must still make our choice between evolutionism and hedonism. The
course of evolution--so far as experience helps us to understand
it--cannot be measured by increase of pleasure. Nothing is said here
to show that it is not perfectly consistent to hold that the moral
feelings and ideas, the customs to which they have given rise, and
the institutions in which they are embodied, have been produced by
the ordinary laws of evolution, and yet to maintain that the moral
end for reflective beings is the hedonistic or utilitarian end. It
may be possible, that is to say, to be an evolutionist in psychology
and sociology, at the same time that one is a hedonist in ethics. But
it is not allowable to adopt pleasure as the end, and yet speak of it
as determined by evolution. Evolution can determine no such end until
it be shown that the progress it connotes implies a proportionate
increase of pleasure.
Such is the conclusion to which we are led by a consideration of the
bearings of evolution upon the increase of pleasure and pain. But
this argument requires to be supplemented by the more satisfactory
method of an independent analysis of pleasure in relation to the
development of human nature; and from this analysis we may hope to
discover how far the theory of evolution is consistent with the
ethics of hedonism.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 4. The psychological analysis of pleasure and pain in
relation to the ethics of evolution.]
The relative and transient nature of pleasure has been urged as an
objection against any form of hedonism by many philosophers since
the time of Plato. And the argument has of late years been brought
forward in a way which shows that the calculus of "pleasures" and
"pains" which Bentham's ethics implies is much less certain and
easy than its author supposed. This has been made clear both by the
subtle analysis carried out by the late Professor Green, and by
Professor Sidgwick's examination of the difficulties which beset the
"hedonistic calculus." It does not appear, however, to have been made
out that the nature of pleasure proves hedonism to be impossible as
the end of conduct. But it may, perhaps, appear that the case is
altered when we consider the matter in the light of the evolutionist
form of hedonism now under examination, and estimate from this point
of view the ethical bearings of the psychological analysis of feeling.
[Sidenote: (_a_) The purely subjective nature of pleasure;]
[Sidenote: its connection with objective states of mind,]
[Sidenote: through which it may be made the end of conduct.]
The difficulty of defining pleasure or pain is not the same as the
difficulty or impossibility of defining any elementary sensation.
For the latter is connected in definite ways with other similar
sensations, can be compared and associated with them, and by
such association go to make up an object or thing. But pleasure
and pain are neither objects nor parts of objects: they cannot
be distinguished from or associated with the impressions of the
senses so as to constitute an object. They can only be spoken of
as an affection of the percipient and active subject, different
in kind both from the objects it knows and the acts it performs:
each can only be defined as the opposite of the other. Pleasure and
pain are not real phenomena with a distinguishable existence of
their own, like sensations, conceptions, or actions; they have no
trace of objectivity whatever, but are, as Hamilton puts it,[176]
"subjectively subjective": "pleasure is not a fact, nor is pain a
fact, but one fact is pleasurable, another painful."[177] Pleasure,
therefore, is a mere feeling of the subject, concomitant with the
sensory or motor presentations which, by reason of their presence
to consciousness, we call objects or actions. It is not something
by itself which we can choose rather than something else, as we may
select a peach instead of an apple. It can only be made the end of
conduct in an indirect way. We must aim not at pleasure _per se_, but
at objects which we have reason to believe will be accompanied by
pleasurable feeling. Pleasure and pain, as it has been urged,[178]
are not quantities that can be added and subtracted. It is not the
pleasurable or painful feeling, but the perceptional or cognitive
elements in the mental state of which it is an element, that admit of
plurality and measurement. But we may foresee that one mental state
will be accompanied by pleasurable, another by painful feeling, and,
on that account, we may choose the former. In a great number of cases
we are further able to make a quantitative estimate, and to say that
the pleasurable feeling accompanying one object or action is more
intense than that accompanying another, and thus to choose one object
rather than another, not merely because one is pleasurable while the
other is painful, but (in cases where both are pleasurable) because
it is supposed that the one will yield more intense or more prolonged
pleasure than the other. If this be true, the purely subjective
nature of pleasure does not make it impossible for it to be taken
as the practical end of conduct for the individual--however inexact
and tentative many of its estimates must be--though it will shortly
appear that its nature unfits it to be the end on the theory of
evolution.
The difficulty arises when we attempt to interpret, by means of
pleasure, the increase and development of life to which the course
of evolution tends, and which is sometimes put forward as the end
which the evolution-theory prescribes for conduct. And the difficulty
also meets us when we seek to explain the conception of a maximum of
pleasures as the end, by means of the conception of evolution.
As long as we are content to look upon human nature as consisting
of constant sources of activity and enjoyment, and having fixed
susceptibilities for pleasure and pain, it is easy to adopt the
increase of pleasure and diminution of pain as our aim. But the
case is altered when we take into consideration the fact that man's
actions and sensibilities are subject to indefinite modification.
Pleasure, as we have seen, is a feeling of the subject dependent upon
the objects, sensory and motor, present at any time to consciousness.
These objects alone can be our end; but we may aim at certain of
them rather than others, simply on account of their pleasurable
accompaniment. It may happen, however, that an object or action at
one time pleasurable becomes painful at another time, and that what
is now painful ceases to be so and becomes pleasurable. In this case
our course of action, if motived by pleasure, would have to be
entirely changed, our practical ethics revised and reversed. And,
although no sudden alteration such as this ever takes place, the
theory of evolution shows that a gradual modification of the kind is
going on.
[Sidenote: (_b_) The conditions of pleasure and pain:]
The conditions of pleasure and pain, physiological and psychological,
are matter of dispute; and the dispute is complicated by the
confusion of the physiological with the psychological problem.
It will be evident, however,--if only we keep different things
clear of each other,--that both kinds of explanation are possible,
and that they are distinct from one another. The question of the
nervous antecedents and concomitants of feeling is one thing, and
quite distinct from the question which now arises of the mental
antecedents or concomitants of feeling. And here the theories which
have attempted a generalisation of the phenomena are, in the light
of recent inquiry, mainly two: the theory that pleasure follows,
or is the sense of, increase of life, and that which holds it to
be the concomitant of unimpeded conscious functioning or of medium
activities.
[Sidenote: (α) Pleasure not definable as the sense of increased
vitality;]
The former theory[179] might be put forward as indicating how it is
possible to institute a connection between pleasure and evolution.
But it has been already shown that neither the actual facts of life,
nor the tendencies to action, can be so interpreted as to make their
nature and development correspond, with any degree of exactness,
with pleasure and its increase.[180] Nor is it possible to make out
that every pain corresponds to a loss of vitality, every pleasure
heightens it. On the contrary, the assertion that pleasure-giving
actions and life-preserving actions coincide, is due to a hasty
generalisation which cannot include all the facts. That it holds
throughout a considerable extent is true. Pleasure is, at any rate,
a usual accompaniment of the normal processes of the development of
life; and pain reaches its climax in death. But yet there is a broad
margin of experience for which the generalisation is incorrect. There
are numerous cases of painful and pleasurable sensations which cannot
be shown to be, respectively, destructive of, and beneficial to,
vitality. As Mr Bain, who always keeps the facts in view, admits,
with regard to the feelings connected with the five senses, "we
cannot contend that the degree of augmented vital energy corresponds
always with the degree of the pleasure."[181] The same discrepancy
may be observed in more complex experiences. The effort after a
fuller life, whether physical or mental, even when its ultimate
success is not doubtful, may bring more pain than pleasure; while the
life which never strains its powers towards the limits of endurance,
may experience almost uninterrupted pleasure: but such pleasure is
the sure herald of the process of degeneration.
[Sidenote: (β) may be held to depend on medium or normal functioning.]
The theory that pleasure follows increased vitality, and pain
decreased vitality, is supplemented or opposed in modern psychology
by the theory that feeling depends on function: that pleasure is the
concomitant of medium activities,[182] or of conscious functioning,
which is unimpeded and not overstrained[183]--pain accompanying the
opposite condition. The objection urged against this view, that it
leaves the so-called "passive pleasures" out of account, seems to be
made without sufficient consideration of what is meant by attributing
passivity to pleasure. All that such an expression can denote, would
appear to be that, in the pleasurable experience referred to, no
exercise of the muscles is implied, not that such an experience can
take place without any conscious activity on the part of the subject.
At the same time, the theory that pleasure in all cases depends
upon function, must be admitted to be obliged to call in the aid of
hypothesis in order to explain all the facts. If the generalisation
required by the theory can be made out, it must be by emphasising
the fact that feeling is never properly regarded as purely passive,
but implies subjective reaction; and by supposing that the variation
of feeling between pleasure and pain depends on a difference in the
character of this subjective reaction. At the same time, the complete
accuracy of this generalisation is not of vital importance here, as
it is mainly with the feeling which manifestly results from activity
or functioning that we are concerned.
[Sidenote: Modification of pleasurable characteristics of objects]
Whether pleasure depends upon increase of vital energy, or upon
unimpeded or medium functioning, it must be subject to modification
along with the conditions under which life may continue and increase,
or the modes of activity which may be carried on without opposition
and in moderation. This constant modification of the objects in
which one takes pleasure, or which give one pain, is, indeed, a fact
which must be admitted by any theory of feeling. A state of mind may
be at first pleasurable; but, if it be long-continued, the pleasure
will give way to the pain of monotony. The same is true of a painful
state of mind: its continuance does not prolong the same intensity
of painful consciousness, but the sensibility becomes dulled and
the pain diminishes. The transition is still more striking in the
case of motor activities. In learning to walk, or to ride, or to
play any instrument, the first experiences are those of painful
effort. Gradually, however, the co-ordinations of movement required
entail less and less pain, till the feeling passes over into its
opposite, and we have a pleasurable sense of successful effort and
well-adapted functioning. But, just as pain gave way to pleasure, so
pleasure itself subsides, the action becomes merely reflex and passes
out of consciousness altogether, unless it be so long continued as
to produce fatigue--that is, pain. Habit, as Dumont remarks,[184]
intensifies perceptions, but weakens pleasure and pain.
[Sidenote: suggests that feeling depends on objective intensity.]
These are psychological facts--not mere theories--which hold true
even of the individual experience. But they have led psychologists
to the theory, supported by a vast amount of direct experiment, that
there is no object or action which can be said to be absolutely and
in itself either pleasant or painful.[185] The feeling of pleasure
or pain accompanying the object is a function of its intensity in
relation to the subject. This proposition cannot, indeed, be fully
demonstrated regarding each simple sensation: to the emotions
into which intricate relations of perceptions enter, it does not
apply, till their complexity has been reduced. Some sensations and
perceptions are certainly felt as painful in any intensity in which
they are distinctly present to consciousness. But, although this
is a real difficulty, it does not seem insuperable. The instances
which Mill cites[186] to throw doubt on the generalisation that
quality of feeling depends on intensity are unfortunately chosen for
his purpose. For--to take his example--the taste of rhubarb is to
many not painful but pleasant; and, indeed, every case of acquired
taste shows that pleasure and pain can be modified through habit and
custom, and suggests that, even in the case of those sensations which
are painful in any form we have been able to experience them, there
is a degree of intensity below which they would, if experienced, be
pleasant. Experiment has proved of the majority even of sensible
qualities, and analogy leads us to conclude of all, that there is a
degree in which each may be pleasant, and a degree in which each
may be painful, and, between them, a--real or imaginary--zero-point
of feeling, where there is neither pleasure nor pain. This must, it
is true, be received as a hypothesis only; but it is a hypothesis
which is suggested by a wide range of facts, and which is able to
include even those facts with which it is seemingly inconsistent,
by supposing that could their intensity be indefinitely diminished
without their passing out of consciousness, these sensations would
reach a point after which they would be felt as pleasant and not as
painful. Further, experiment shows that this dividing-point which
separates the two poles of feeling is not always placed at the same
degree of intensity, that it differs not only for every object,
but for each individual subject as well, and that it undergoes
modification in the course of the subject's development.[187]
What is true of sense-perception is still more evident regarding
those experiences in which the activity of the subject is more
obviously involved. As any function may, if carried beyond a certain
degree of intensity, be painful, so any function consistent with life
may be a source of pleasure.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: (_c_) Application of the theory of evolution:]
[Sidenote: any conduct consistent with conditions of life will come
to be pleasurable;]
From the preceding discussion two things may be inferred: first, the
dependence of pleasure and pain on the subject-activity, whether the
activity be that of perception or of what is specifically called
action; and secondly, the modification of pleasure and pain, and
transition from one to the other, along with the modification of
that subject-activity. To the application of both these conclusions
there may be limits; but their general accuracy does not seem
doubtful. What the doctrine of evolution adds to this is its
proof of the indefinite modifiability of human function. "It is
an essential principle of life," Mr Spencer wrote,[188] before he
had arrived at his general theory of evolution, "that a faculty to
which circumstances do not allow full exercise diminishes; and that
a faculty on which circumstances make excessive demands increases;"
and to this we must now add, "that, supposing it consistent with
maintenance of life, there is no kind of activity which will not
become a source of pleasure if continued; and that therefore
pleasure will eventually accompany every mode of action demanded
by social conditions."[189] It is, he holds, a "biological truth,"
that "everywhere faculties adjust themselves to the conditions
of existence in such wise that the activities those conditions
require become pleasurable."[190] The vast periods of time over
which evolution stretches are scarcely needed to show how pleasure
may be made to follow from almost any course of action consistent
with the continuance of life. The change of habits which often
takes place in the history of a nation, and even in the life of an
individual, makes this sufficiently obvious. But, if we still think
of making attainment of pleasure the end of conduct, the doctrine of
evolution must give us pause. It has been already argued that, given
certain sources of, and susceptibilities for, pleasure, the course
of evolution has not been such as to produce an exact coincidence
between them and the actions which further life. But it would seem
that, given habits of acting which are consistent with the conditions
of life, and which are systematically carried out, these will not
fail to grow pleasant as the organism becomes adapted to them. At the
best, it is difficult enough to say, even for the individual, whether
one imagined object or course of action will exceed another in
pleasurable feeling or not. But, when we remember that function and
feeling may be modified indefinitely, it is impossible to say what
course of conduct will produce the greatest amount of pleasure for
the race. Taking in all its effects, we cannot say that one way of
seeking pleasure is better--that is, will bring more pleasure--than
another. Bearing in mind the modifications which evolution produces,
it seems impossible to guide the active tendencies of mankind towards
the goal of greatest pleasure, except by saying that the greatest
pleasure will be got from the greatest amount of successful, or of
unrestrained, or of medium activity.
[Sidenote: maximum pleasure only definable in terms of life.]
If, then, we have been seeking to define the evolutionist end by
interpreting it in terms of pleasure, it appears that we have only
succeeded in making the round of a circle: pleasure as the end is
seen to be only definable as life or activity, although it was
adopted as the end in order that by its help we might discover what
life or activity meant as the end for conduct. We may, perhaps, still
be able to hold to a form of hedonism, if we turn our attention from
the race to a small portion of present mankind. In spite of the
modifiability of function and its parasite feeling, we may still be
able to say that such and such a course of action is likely to bring
most pleasure to the individual or even to the family. But we cannot
extend such a means of interpreting the ethics of evolution to the
race, where the possibility of modification is indefinitely great,
and the pain incurred in initiating a change counts for little in
comparison with its subsequent results. If we continue to look from
the evolutionist point of view, the question, What conduct will on
the whole bring most pleasure? can only be answered by saying that
it is the conduct which will most promote life--an answer which
might have been more satisfactory had it not been to give meaning
to this end "promotion of life" that it was interpreted in terms of
greatest pleasure. The evolution-theory of ethics is thus seen to
oscillate from the theory which looks upon the _summum bonum_ as
pleasure, to that which finds it in activity. It contains elements
which make it impossible for it to adhere to the former alternative.
The comprehensiveness of its view of life makes it unable to adopt
pleasure as the end, since pleasure changes with every modification
of function. And it has now to be seen whether the empirical method
of interpretation to which it adheres will allow of its notion of
life or activity affording a satisfactory end for conduct.
FOOTNOTES:
[154] Data of Ethics, p. 171.
[155] Data of Ethics, p. 162.
[156] Ibid., p. 57.
[157] Cf. A. Barratt, in Mind, ii. 172 n.
[158] As illustrating this I may refer to G. v. Giźycki, Philosophische
Consequenzen der Lamarck-Darwin'schen Entwicklungstheorie (1876),
p. 27: "Wir haben oben die Erhaltung und Förderung des Lebens des
Individuums und der Gattung als das eine Ziel der Einrichtung des
geistigen Organismus gekennzeichnet." P. 58: "Auf das Streben nach in
sich befriedigtem psychischen Leben [that is to say, pleasure] sind
alle animalen Organismen angelegt." In his popular essay, 'Grundzüge
der Moral' (1883), Dr Giźycki's principle and method are utilitarian.
With the above may be compared Guyau, Esquisse d'une morale sans
obligation ni sanction (1885), p. 15: "L'action sort naturellement
du fonctionnement de la vie, en grande partie inconscient; elle
entre aussitôt dans le domaine de la conscience et de la jouissance,
mais elle n'en vient pas. La tendance de l'être à persévérer dans
l'être est le fond de tout désir sans constituer elle-même un désir
déterminé."
[159] Spencer, Data of Ethics, p. 82 f; Principles of Psychology,
§ 125, 3d ed., i. 280; Stephen, Science of Ethics, p. 83. The
simplicity of this argument will be appreciated if we consider the
difficulty Comte experienced in trying to reach a similar conclusion.
See Positive Philosophy, Miss Martineau's translation, ii. 87 ff.
[160] Cf. Phänomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins, pp. 701, 708.
[161] Cf. Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, 3d ed., p. 127.
[162] Data of Ethics, p. 26.
[163] Cf. Vaihinger, Hartmann, Dühring und Lange (1876), p. 124.
[164] Cf. Sully, Pessimism, p. 216.
[165] See above, p. 167 f.
[166] Cf. Fiske, Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy (1874), ii. 332 f.
[167] "Imitation," according to Kant (Grundlegung zur Met. d. Sitten,
Werke, iv. 257), "has no place at all in morals;" and this is true
if the naked law of duty--or respect for it--is the sole ethical
motive. But if morality consists in the attainment of an ideal which
is being gradually realised in man, moral value will not be denied to
the motive which leads the individual to fashion his own nature after
that in which morality has attained more complete realisation.
[168] See the concluding pages of this chapter.
[169] Philosophie des Unbewussten, 6th ed., p. 660 ff.
[170] Cf. Sully, Pessimism, p. 226 n.
[171] Cf. J. Ward, Journal of Speculative Philosophy, xvi. (1882),
377.
[172] Phil. d. Unbewussten, p. 747.
[173] Bentham, Theory of Legislation (by Dumont, 1876), p. 103 ff.
Wundt, Physiologische Psychologie, 2d ed., p. 469, finds in this
an instance of Weber's law. Thus, the man with £100 receives the
same pleasure on receipt of £1, as the possessor of £1000 does on
receiving £10. As Wundt remarks, however, this is only true within
certain limits. Sixpence may give more pleasure to a beggar who is
never far from the starvation-point, than the clearing of a million
to Baron Rothschild. Further than this, the law only states an
"abstract" truth. For the susceptibility to pleasure is not only
very different in different individuals, but this difference depends
on many other circumstances than the amount of wealth already in
possession,--such as original emotional susceptibility, &c.
[174] Cf. Comte, Positive Philosophy, ii. 144.
[175] Phän. d. s. B., p. 640.
[176] Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 432.
[177] L. Dumont, Théorie scientifique de la sensibilité, 2d ed., p.
83; cf. F. Bouillier, Du plaisir et de la douleur, 2d ed., p. 29 ff.
Reference may also be made to the leading psychological text-book.
"Das Gefühl," says Volkmann (Lehrbuch der Psychologie, § 127, 3d ed.,
ii. 300), "ist nämlich keine eigene Vorstellung neben den anderen
(es gibt keine eigenen 'Gefühlsvorstellungen'), ja überhaupt gar
keine Vorstellung." Professor Bain's view is different, but does
not altogether prevent him from acknowledging the subjectivity of
feeling: "Without intellectual images clearly recollected, we do not
remember feelings; the reproduction of feeling is an intellectual
fact, and the groundwork is intellectual imagery."--Emotions, p. 63.
[178] Cf. Green, Introduction to Hume, ii. § 7.
[179] Cf. Spinoza, Ethica, iii. 11, schol.; Hobbes, Leviathan, i. 6,
p. 25; Bain, The Senses and the Intellect, p. 283. Professor Bain's
statement is carefully guarded: "A very considerable number of the
facts may be brought under the following principle--namely, that
states of pleasure are connected with an increase, and states of pain
with an abatement, of some, or all, of the vital functions."
[180] As Mr Spencer allows, Psychology, § 126, i. 284: "In the case
of mankind, then, there has arisen, and must long continue, a deep
and involved derangement of the natural connections between pleasures
and beneficial actions, and between pains and detrimental actions."
[181] The Senses and the Intellect, p. 286. The Law of Conservation
is incomplete, Mr Bain holds, and must be supplemented by the Law of
Stimulation (p. 294).
[182] Spencer, Psychology, § 123, i. 277: "Generally speaking,
then, pleasures are the concomitants of medium activities, where
the activities are of kinds liable to be in excess or in defect;
and where they are of kinds not liable to be excessive, pleasure
increases as the activity increases, except where the activity is
either constant or involuntary."
[183] Hamilton, Lectures, ii. 440: "Pleasure is the reflex of the
spontaneous and unimpeded exertion of a power of whose energies
we are conscious. Pain, a reflex of the overstrained or repressed
exertion of such a power." Cf. Aristotle, Eth. N., vii. 12, p. 1153 a
14, x. 4, p. 1174 b 20.
[184] Théorie scientifique, p. 78.
[185] Cf. Wundt, Physiol. Psych., p. 470; Fechner, Vorschule der
Aesthetik, ii. 243 f.
[186] Exam. of Hamilton's Philosophy, 5th ed., p. 559.
[187] See Fechner, _loc. cit._
[188] Social Statics, p. 79.
[189] Data of Ethics, p. 186.
[190] Mind, vi. 85.